dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Biosensor Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: AUG. 22, 2024 In Re: 32384125 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner, a scientist, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant 
classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality 
Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b )(2). 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the record did not 
establish that the Petitioner is eligible for a waiver of the job offer requirement in the national interest. 
The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3. 
The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. 
Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter 
de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, 
we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced 
degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 
203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. 
If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate 
that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." 
Section 203(b )(2)(B)(i) of the Act. While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the 
term "national interest," Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the 
framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if 
the petitioner demonstrates that: 
1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts (and Third 
in an unpublished decision) in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary 
in nature). 
• The proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; 
• The individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and 
• On balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. 
Id. 
TI. ANALYSIS 
The Director determined that the Petitioner qualified as an advanced degree professional, and further 
concluded the Petitioner's proposed endeavor has substantial merit but did not sufficiently satisfy it is 
of national importance under Dhanasar's first prong. Based on our de novo review of the record, we 
conclude the Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated the substantial merit and the national 
importance of his proposed endeavor under the first prong. Specifically, we conclude that the Petitioner 
has submitted insufficient and inconsistent evidence regarding the substantive nature of his proposed 
endeavor. While we may not discuss every document submitted, we have reviewed and considered each 
one. 
The Petitioner provided in his petition that his proposed employment would be as a scientist, his worksite 
location would be in I I Maryland, and his proposed job would be to research and develop 
advanced sensor technologies and new data-driven guidance to monitor heavy metal levels in water and 
commercial products. The I Iaddress provided in the petition is for a 
_______ office. In his initial cover letter, the Petitioner stated that the proposed endeavor 
would be to develop advanced sensor technologies and new cutting-edge, data-driven guidance for public 
health authorities and industry watchdogs conducting monitoring of heavy metal levels in water and 
commercial products to reduce the frequency and human and economic costs of heavy metal poisoning 
across industries such as food, agriculture and pharmaceuticals. The Petitioner submitted information 
about different types of metal found in baby food, and letters from fellow scientists, one who references 
the Petitioner's research on heavy metal contamination. In a separate statement, the Petitioner stated that 
his proposed endeavor would be to develop advanced sensor technologies and new cutting-edge, 
data-driven guidance for public health authorities and industry watchdogs conducting monitoring of 
heavy metal levels in water and commercial products. He mentioned he would pursue his proposed 
endeavor while earning his Ph.D. from Illinois, he would then 
pursue a scientist position with the and his planned research projects would include designing and 
fabricating interdigitated electrodes, microfluidic chips using laser and Dimatix printing, and synthesizing 
nanomaterial composite for the detection of nucleic acid, heavy metals, insecticides, and biomarkers of 
cancer diseases. Based on his initial submission, the Director issued a request for evidence (RFE). In the 
RFE, the Director determined that the proposed endeavor did not have national importance under the 
Dhanasar first prong. 
In response to the RFE, the Petitioner submitted a brief in which he stated, "[w]hile the Request grants 
substantial merit to [the Petitioner's] research, it challenges the national importance of his proposed 
endeavor. Accordingly, [the Petitioner] has revised his proposed endeavor." The Petitioner then stated 
that his proposed endeavor would be to continue his investigation into the development of miniature 
electrochemical biosensors for the early detection of neurological diseases such as Alzheimer's disease 
and Parkinson's disease to improve public health. He mentioned that the miniature electrochemical 
biosensors are also applicable for the early detection of other acute diseases, metabolites in blood, heavy 
2 
I 
metals in food or the environment, insecticides in agriculture, biosafety with biodefense, etc. His RFE 
response included lengthy information about Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Next, he 
mentioned that he would pursue a position as a post-doctoral fellow upon completion of his Ph.D., and 
he would pursue a position with a biotechnology company called I I located in I 
California. 
In denying the Petitioner's national importance claim, the Director mentioned that he made a material 
change to his proposed endeavor in his RFE response, and cited to Matter ofIzzumi, 22 I&N Dec. 169 
(AAO 1998) (concluding a petitioner may not make a material change to a petition to make a deficient 
petition conform to service requirements). The Director stated that the Petitioner must establish eligibility 
based on the proposed endeavor from his initial statement. 
On appeal, the Petitioner states that his updated statement clarified his ongoing research and concrete 
plans for fulfilling his proposed endeavor to develop advanced sensor techs and data-driven guidance to 
reduce heavy metal poisoning across industries. He asserts that he did not make an abrupt change of his 
overarching petition but a supplementary statement to address the Director's concerns regarding his 
proposed endeavor's national importance. He claims that his elaboration of the proposed endeavor's 
national importance is not a major deviation from his proposal to develop advanced sensor technologies 
and data-driven guidance for reducing heavy metal poisoning across industries. 
In determining national importance, the relevant question is not the importance of the field, industry, 
or profession in which the individual will work; instead we focus on the "the specific endeavor that 
the foreign national proposes to undertake." See Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 889. In Dhanasar, we 
further noted that "we look for broader implications" of the proposed endeavor and that "[ a ]n 
undertaking may have national importance for example, because it has national or even global 
implications within a particular field." Id. We also stated that "[a]n endeavor that has significant 
potential to employ U.S. workers or has other substantial positive economic effects, particularly in an 
economically depressed area, for instance, may well be understood to have national importance." Id. 
at 890. 
Here, the nature of the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is unclear. The Petitioner initially stated 
multiple times that his proposed endeavor is to develop advanced sensor technologies and new 
cutting-edge, data-driven guidance for public health authorities and industry watchdogs conducting 
monitoring of heavy metal levels in water and commercial products. He asserted that he would work at 
the office inl IMaryland, and he would work on other research projects. There was no 
mention that he would develop biosensors for the early detection of neurological diseases such as 
Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease to improve public health. However, in response to the RFE 
the Petitioner admitted that he was revising his proposed endeavor. The new proposed endeavor would 
be to develop miniature electrochemical biosensors for the early detection of neurological diseases such 
as Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease to improve public health. He then mentioned that the 
biosensors could be used for a myriad of other purposes, and that he would seek employment with a 
company, I I upon completion of his post-doctorate fellowship. 
The Petitioner's response significantly departed from the proposed endeavor he indicated in his initial 
filing. The initial proposed endeavor focused on developing technology to address heavy metal levels 
in water and commercial products. In the RFE response, the Petitioner transformed his proposed 
3 
endeavor to focus on developing technology for early detection of neurological diseases such as 
Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease to improve public health. Additionally, he changed the 
proposed location for his endeavor from the to a private company. 
A petitioner must establish eligibility for the benefit they are seeking at the time the petition is filed. 
See Matter of Katigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l Comm'r 1971). A petitioner may not make 
material changes to a petition to make a deficient petition conform to USCIS requirements. See Matter 
ofIzummi, at 176. The Petitioner's RFE response constituted a materially different proposed endeavor, 
with a different purpose and proposed location where the endeavor would be performed. The 
Petitioner's materially significant transformation rendered his proposed endeavor ill-defined and 
amorphous. The Petitioner's reversal introduced ambiguity into his proposed endeavor which 
prevented analysis into its substantial merit or national importance. 
The Dhanasar framework cannot be applied to two dueling proposed endeavors. A petitioner must 
identify the specific endeavor they propose to undertake. See Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. at 
889. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the substantial merit and national importance of an 
endeavor when a Petitioner cannot consistently articulate the nature of the endeavor. 
Because the Petitioner has not provided consistent information regarding his proposed endeavor, we 
cannot conclude that he meets the first prong ofthe Dhanasar analytical framework. Since the identified 
basis for denial is dispositive of the Petitioner's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the 
Petitioner's appellate arguments regarding his eligibility under the second and third prongs of 
Dhanasar 's analytical framework. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and 
agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results 
they reach"); see also Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516, 526 n.7 (BIA 2015) (declining to reach 
alternative issues on appeal where an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
4